Literature DB >> 24003354

3.0 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

Reni S Butler1, Christine Chen, Reena Vashi, Regina J Hooley, Liane E Philpotts.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare 3.0 Tesla (T) vs 1.5T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging systems in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.
METHODS: Upon Institutional Review Board approval, a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective review of 147 consecutive 3.0T MR examinations and 98 consecutive 1.5T MR examinations in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer between 7/2009 and 5/2010 was performed. Eleven patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the 3.0T group were excluded. Mammographically occult suspicious lesions (BIRADS Code 4 and 5) additional to the index cancer in the ipsilateral and contralateral breast were identified. Lesion characteristics and pathologic diagnoses were recorded, and results achieved with both systems compared. Statistical significance was analyzed using Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: In the 3.0T group, 206 suspicious lesions were identified in 55% (75/136) of patients and 96% (198/206) of these lesions were biopsied. In the 1.5T group, 98 suspicious lesions were identified in 53% (52/98) of patients and 90% (88/98) of these lesions were biopsied. Biopsy results yielded additional malignancies in 24% of patients in the 3.0T group vs 14% of patients in the 1.5T group (33/136 vs 14/98, P = 0.07). Average size and histology of the additional cancers was comparable. Of patients who had a suspicious MR imaging study, additional cancers were found in 44% of patients in the 3.0T group vs 27% in the 1.5T group (33/75 vs 14/52, P = 0.06), yielding a higher positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsies performed with the 3.0T system.
CONCLUSION: 3.0T MR imaging detected more additional malignancies in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and yielded a higher PPV for biopsies performed with the 3.0T system.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3 Tesla; Breast; Breast cancer; Breast magnetic resonance imaging; Cancer staging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Outcome; Technical

Year:  2013        PMID: 24003354      PMCID: PMC3758496          DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i8.285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Radiol        ISSN: 1949-8470


  39 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging of occult breast cancer.

Authors:  D R Baker
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Breast MR imaging at 3T.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 3.  Optimizing 1.5-Tesla and 3-Tesla dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts.

Authors:  Manjil Chatterji; Cecilia L Mercado; Linda Moy
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.266

4.  Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging.

Authors:  L Esserman; N Hylton; L Yassa; J Barclay; S Frankel; E Sickles
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Does preoperative magnetic resonance imaging beneficially alter surgical management of invasive lobular carcinoma?

Authors:  Briana Lau; Lina M Romero
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 0.688

6.  The efficacy of breast MRI in predicting breast conservation therapy.

Authors:  Sarah Blair; Michele McElroy; Michael S Middleton; Chris Comstock; Tanya Wolfson; Mitch Kamrava; Anne Wallace; Joanne Mortimer
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast for cancer diagnosis and staging.

Authors:  Debra L Monticciolo
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.875

8.  MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy.

Authors:  S G Orel; M D Schnall; C M Powell; M G Hochman; L J Solin; B L Fowble; M H Torosian; E F Rosato
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent.

Authors:  C Boetes; R D Mus; R Holland; J O Barentsz; S P Strijk; T Wobbes; J H Hendriks; S H Ruys
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  Fat suppression techniques (STIR vs. SPAIR) on diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions at 3.0 T: preliminary experience.

Authors:  Sofia Brandão; Luísa Nogueira; Eduarda Matos; Rita Gouveia Nunes; Hugo Alexandre Ferreira; Joana Loureiro; Isabel Ramos
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Diffusion weighted MRI and spectroscopy in invasive carcinoma of the breast at 3Tesla. Correlation with dynamic contrast enhancement and pathologic findings.

Authors:  G Boulogianni; I Chryssogonidis; A Drevelegas
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 0.471

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT compared with that of contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast at 3 T.

Authors:  Heinrich F Magometschnigg; Pascal A Baltzer; Barbara Fueger; Thomas H Helbich; Georgios Karanikas; Peter Dubsky; Margaretha Rudas; Michael Weber; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Diffusion tensor imaging for characterizing tumor microstructure and improving diagnostic performance on breast MRI: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Jing Luo; Daniel S Hippe; Habib Rahbar; Sana Parsian; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 5.  Occult breast cancer: Where are we at?

Authors:  Adam Ofri; Katrina Moore
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Comparison of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings of Paget's Disease of the Breast and Malignant Tumor Invasion of the Nipple-Areola Complex.

Authors:  Almila Coşkun Bilge; Hale Aydın; Işıl Esen Bostancı; Özge Tanişman; Diba Saygılı Öz
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2021-06-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.